TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (9) TMI 695
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t. 2. Precisely stated, the background facts leading to present appeals are such that the assessee-individual is engaged in the business of dealing in real estate. The income-tax authorities carried out a search u/s. 132 of the Act upon "Piyush Patel Group" including assessee on 27.12.2012, pursuant to which the AO framed special assessments u/s. 153A r.w.s. 143(3) for AYs 2011-12 & 2012-13 and regular assessment u/s. 143(3) for AY 2013-14 which are the subject-matters of present appeals. While framing those assessments, the Ld. AO made certain additions/disallowances. Aggrieved, the assessee carried matters in first-appeals before Ld. CIT(A) whereupon the Ld. CIT(A) granted certain reliefs. Now, the assessee and revenue, both are aggrieved by the orders passed by Ld. CIT(A) and have come in present appeals before ITAT. 3. Since these appeals involve identical/similar issues, they were heard together at the request of parties and are being disposed of by this consolidated order for the sake of convenience, brevity and clarity. We will first adjudicate assessee's appeals and thereafter take up revenue's appeals. Assessee's Appeals: 4. Initially, the assessee has raised g....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....val of the superior authority i.e. the JCIT, Central Range, Surat, resulted into pure violation of the CBDT's Circular No. 3 of 2008 dtd. 12-03-2008 and hence, being patently in violation of the provisions of the law, arbitrary, baseless and without jurisdiction, is liable to be quashed." Additional grounds in ITA 130/SRT/2022 - AY 2013-14: "1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case as well in law, the learned CIT (Appeals) ought to have quashed the impugned assessment order passed by the JAO, on the ground that the JAO had not taken a valid approval u/s. 153D in accordance with the law and therefore, the assessment order passed for the relevant assessment year in question based on mere non speaking, mechanical and half-hearted approval of the superior authority i.e. the JCIT, Central Range, Surat, resulted into pure violation of the CBDT's Circular No. 3 of 2008 dtd. 12-03-2008 and hence, being patently in violation of the provisions of the law, arbitrary, baseless and without jurisdiction, is liable to be quashed." 5. Ld. AR for assessee submitted that the additional grounds are legal in nature, go to the root of the matter, do not require consid....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....above- mentioned assessment years, there is a clear mention of passing the assessment order after obtaining the prior approval from the Addl/Jt CIT, Central Range, Surat vide specific letter number. The relevant paras and approval letter numbers from all the three assessment orders are mentioned as under for your kind reference: (a) AY 2011-12: Oder u/s 143(3) rws 153A of the Act dated 27.03.2015 at para 11, Letter No. SRT/Addl.CIT/CR/Approval/153D/CC-4/2014-15/496/119 dated 25.03.2015. (b) AY 2012-13: Oder u/s 143(3) rws 153A of the Act dated 27.03.2015 at para 12, Letter No. SRT/Addl.CIT/CR/Approval/153D/CC-4/2014-15/497/119 dated 27.03.2015. (c) AY 2013-14: Oder u/s 143(3) of the Act dated 27.03.2015 at para 7. Letter No. SRT/ Addl. CIT/CR/Approval/153D/CC-4/2014- 15/498/119 dated 27.03.2015. Thus, it is evident that, all the assessment order were passed after following due process and procedures under the relevant provisions of Income Tax Act, 1961. 3. Certified copy of the documents, materials, statements, reports, etc. The copies relied upon documents, materials, statements, reports, etc. including the seized materials and the seized books of accounts have b....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e. Iti s further clarified that even if the AO of the searched person and "other person" is one and the same, then also he is required to record his satisfaction as held by the courts." The learned counsel for the assessee, submitted that the assessment proceedings carried under section 153 C of the Income Tax Act, 1961 were without recording of any satisfaction by the AO. The learned counsel contended that in the assessee's case, no satisfaction was recorded by the AO of the person searched. The learned counsel for the assessee submitted that assessee has requested the AO vide letter dated 17^th April 2018 to furnish copy of satisfaction note recorded under section 153C in the case of to represent the case before Tribunal. However, it was not supplied to the assessee. Therefore, the Bench of Tribunal has also requested the AO vide letter dated 17th April 2018 to furnish copy of satisfaction note recorded under section 153C in the case of to represent the case before Tribunal. However, it was not supplied to the assessee. Therefore, the Bench of Tribunal has also requested the learned Departmental Representative to supply copy of satisfaction note if any recorded by the AO. In ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rused the materials available on record. We find that the assessing officer has issued notices under section 153C of the Act based on search under section 132(1) which was carried out in the case of Shri Kirit M. Shah. The Assessing Officer issued notices under section 153C and initiated the assessments proceeding for the years under consideration. The provisions of section 153C can be invoked only after recording a satisfaction in the case of persons searched qua the assets or books or documents seized during the course of search belong to some other person. In the instant case, the Assessing officer of other concerned assessee has not recorded any satisfaction qua the belongingness of the seized documents with the assessee. Similarly, as admitted by the AO vide letter dated 20.8.2018 that there was no satisfaction note is available in the case of the assessee, led to believe that there was no satisfaction note recorded in the case of the assessee as well as in the case searched person, therefore, the assessment proceeding initiated by way of issue of notice under section 153C read with section 153 A is bad in law. The Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Pepsi Co. India Ho....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....to the present assessees was recorded. The learned counsel for the assessee relied on circular No. 24/2015 dated 31.12.2015, issued by the CBDT, in which, the Board following the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of M/s Calcutta Knitwear's (civil Appeal No. 3958 of 2014 dated 12.3.2014), has directed that where the satisfaction by the Assessing officer of the person searched and other person is not found recorded, the Department should not press that mater in Appeal. Thus, keeping in view rival submissions in light of judicial pronouncements as discussed above and CBDT Circular (supra) the assessment in the assessee case for the assessment year under consideration is held as illegal and void-ab initio. Accordingly, the grounds raised by the assessees relating to applicability of section 153 C are allowed." 7. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and having gone through the materials on record, we are of the view that no error, not to speak of any error of law, is said to have been committed by the Tribunal in the impugned order. 8. We would not like to disturb the finding of fact arrived at by the Tribunal. 9. In the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....y in nature. The Supreme Court, in some decisions has held that merely because a provision of law is couched in a negative language implying mandatory character, the same is not without exceptions. However, the present case deals with the interpretation of a taxing statute. It is well settled that a toxing statute has to strictly construed, therefore, from the language employed in section 153D of the Act, the requirement of obtaining the prior approval of the Joint Commissioner has to be regarded as mandatory in nature. 11. In the facts of the present case, as the assessment order has been pasand by an Income Tax Officer, the requirement of obtaining the prior approval of the Joint Commissioner under section 153D of the Act was absolute. The Tribunal, however, has recorded a finding of fact that there is nothing on record to indicate that the prior approval of the Joint Commissioner was obtained. As a natural corollary therefore, in the absence of the requirement of prior approval of the Joint Commissioner being satisfied, the whole proceeding would stand invalidated. The Tribunal was, therefore, wholly justified in holding that the impugned order of assessment would stand....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....fore, opposed the plea taken by Ld. AR. 14. In re-joinder, Ld. AR submitted that the AO personally appeared before the bench and claimed/showed the movement of papers between AO's office and higher authority but the approval-letters were not produced/shown. Ld. AR contended that the movement of the assessment records or papers between the AO and the higher authority cannot, by itself, establish that a valid prior approval u/s. 153D was actually granted in the manner contemplated by law. 15. We have considered the rival submissions of both sides and perused the material available on record. The controversy before us is whether, on the facts and circumstances of the present case, the assessment-orders passed by Ld. AO can be sustained when the approval-letters allegedly granted u/s. 153D have not been produced before us and the AO himself has stated that such approval-letters are not traceable. 16. Section 153D of the Act reads as under: "No order of assessment or reassessment shall be passed by an Assessing Officer below the rank of Joint Commissioner in respect of each assessment year referred to in clause (b) of sub-section (1) of section 153A or the assessment y....